MovieChat Forums > Evil Dead II (1987) Discussion > How can you idiots think this was a dire...

How can you idiots think this was a direct sequel?

posted 14 years ago by surfingthechaos
130 replies | jump to latest

IMDB is truly a breeding ground for stupidity.

Yes if you wanted to disregard the first fifteen minutes you could pretend that it took place after the first film, but that isn't the way they filmed it. Yes I understand why they chose to film it the way they did, but that is irrelevant.

The start of Evil Dead 2 does not recap the events of Evil Dead 1. Going to a cabin with one person is not the same thing as going to a cabin with five people. They are two different scenarios. What is so hard to understand about that?

You could say that the first segment of Evil Dead 2 is a remake of the first while the rest is a semi-sequel. You could say that the second film is a sequel that takes place in an alternate timeline. You could even just repeat to yourself "it's just a show, I should really just relax". You CANNOT, however say that Evil Dead 2 directly follows the events of Evil Dead 1. It does not. This is not up for debate.

In any case Evil Dead 1 sucks anyway. Evil Dead 2 is best taken as the first in the series. That 2 in the title is just one of those quirks that makes this movie such a unique and wonderful part of cinematic history.

[–] elidirkx 14 years ago

Yawn.

If you don't like my signature, go watch Transformers

[–] leermartinez 14 years ago

you can take the movie either way. it could be sequel and it could be a remake. either way, it works. i thought i heard that they couldn't use footage of the first movie so they redid the intro by making it short and simple. what confuses me is the ending to part 2 and the start of part 3.

[–] [deleted] 8 months ago

Profound.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

IMDB is truly a breeding ground for stupidity.

As your post has proven.

Yes if you wanted to disregard the first fifteen minutes you could pretend that it took place after the first film

Well you don't need to "disregard" the recap...and it's only 7 mins not 15.
But anyway, as you say the film does take place after the first.
So you have proven your own argument wrong already.

Yes I understand why they chose to film it the way they did, but that is irrelevant.

Again proving your own argument wrong here.
And it's not "irrelevant" at all.

The start of Evil Dead 2 does not recap the events of Evil Dead 1.

Yeah, it does...

Going to a cabin with one person is not the same thing as going to a cabin with five people. They are two different scenarios. What is so hard to understand about that?

What is so hard to undersatand about the fact the SAME Ash goes to the SAME cabin with the SAME Linda give her the SAME necklace. Finds the SAME book and ends up bringing about the SAME demons?

For something that is as you say "two different scenarios"...that's a lot of SAMES.

You could say that the first segment of Evil Dead 2 is a remake of the first while the rest is a semi-sequel.

Or you could say the first 7 mins are a recap and the film picks up AFTER said recap and starts EXACTLY where the last one left off...and the proof is right in the film itself.
What is a "semi-sequel"?
You can't make up words and phrases in order to attmept to porve a falwed point.

You could say that the second film is a sequel that takes place in an alternate timeline.

Not really...cos it's the same timeline.

You CANNOT, however say that Evil Dead 2 directly follows the events of Evil Dead 1. It does not.

Well yeah, it does as I have proven several times and as the people directly responsible (SAm, Bob and Bruce) have stated too.

This is not up for debate

Then why start a debate on it?

In any case Evil Dead 1 sucks anyway.

Opinion...and a stupid one at that.

Evil Dead 2 is best taken as the first in the series.

If you are an idiot yes.

That 2 in the title is just one of those quirks that makes this movie such a unique and wonderful part of cinematic history.

The 2 is "just a quirk"?
So I guess so is the tagline of "The Sequel To The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror".
Maybe it's also a "quirk" the fact the story continues?

I guess this is also a "quirk"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2450555845715632463#docid=3550 076755651398265

An interview with Sam in which he states SEVERAL times ED II is a sequel.
It's in several parts but watch them all and count how many times ED II is called a sequel...even by Sam himself.
But what does Sam know eh, he only wrote and directed it.
Oh and also discussed is the recap and how it works in relation to the frist film.

Sam's words direct from his mouth..."Most people have not seen The Evil Dead, and yet this (Evil dead II) is a direct continuation of The Evil Dead Story"

But I guess that is just another "quirk" right?

Why is it that all you "it's not a sequel" crowd can never back anything up. Outside of giving bad opinions?
Yet people that KNOW it is a sequel vcan back this up with various proof?

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] surfingthechaos 14 years ago

I didn't say the second film takes place after the first. I said you could pretend it does if you disregard the first 15 minutes. Yes I said 15 instead of 7. Score 1 for you anal boy.

yes "the SAME Ash goes to the SAME cabin with the SAME Linda give her the SAME necklace. Finds the SAME book and ends up bringing about the SAME demons". So what? in one scenario he goes with one person, in the other he goes with 5 people. I'm sorry, but those are two different scenarios. Are they similar? Similar enough to potentially be considered a remake, but not close enough to be a recap.

It would be an absolute necessity to disregard these first seven minutes in order to consider the movie a sequel. And let me repeat why once again. GOING TO A CABIN WITH ONE PERSON IS A DIFFERENT THING THAN GOING TO A CABIN WITH FIVE PEOPLE. I don't quite understand why that isn't registering in your brain.

The circumstances behind the filming of the scenes are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The fact remains that he filmed a different version of events that happened in the first film. He may have originally wanted to film a recap, but that isn't what he filmed, and you cannot claim that he did, because that isn't what you see in the film.

No, not even Sam Raimi can say it's a recap because that's not what it is. If Sam Raimi told you that the movie was filmed on Mars would you believe him? He may have wrote and directed it, but if he says something in contradiction to the facts then he's still wrong. period. "The Sequel To The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror" is a marketing ploy.

You have no proof of anything. All you have is semantics and hearsay. You don't even seem to comprehend the meaning of formulating a coherent argument. Maybe you should stop spending your time debating on IMDB and try picking up a book and reading something for once.

[–] livestreamok 14 years ago

I think they used "2" in "Evil Dead 2" was not because it's a sequel but it was because the story or the base of its story or topic(which is demons) was same topic like The Evil Dead so it was just a different story of demons night at the cabin with same topic; demons.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

yes "the SAME Ash goes to the SAME cabin with the SAME Linda give her the SAME necklace. Finds the SAME book and ends up bringing about the SAME demons". So what? in one scenario he goes with one person, in the other he goes with 5 people. I'm sorry, but those are two different scenarios. Are they similar? Similar enough to potentially be considered a remake, but not close enough to be a recap.

No close enough to be a recap?
So every other aspect of the story is the same (as you admit), except for the head count...and that is not close enough?

Just asking here..but what is a recap?

It would be an absolute necessity to disregard these first seven minutes in order to consider the movie a sequel. And let me repeat why once again. GOING TO A CABIN WITH ONE PERSON IS A DIFFERENT THING THAN GOING TO A CABIN WITH FIVE PEOPLE. I don't quite understand why that isn't registering in your brain.

Registering with my brain?
It is not a "necessity" to disregarg the recap at all, in fact it's a "necessity" that it is there.
Why is the following not registering with your brain...every single aspect of the recap is EXACTLY the same as the main plot events of The Evil Dead with the small exception of the amount of people that are there...
"I don't quite understand why that isn't registering in your brain."

The circumstances behind the filming of the scenes are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

How are they "irrelevant"?
The main/sole reason Sam had to re-shoot the recap was due to the "circumstances behind the filming".
If Sam had not had trouble getting the legal rights to use The Evil Dead in the recap...then the recap would have been made up of clips from The Evil Dead.
That's pretty damn relevant really.

If I were you, at this point.
I would just admit I was wrong.

The fact remains that he filmed a different version of events that happened in the first film.

Outside of the number of people that go to the cabin...the events are the same. You even admited as much earlier.
Now you are just contradiciting yourself.

Let me put this to you.
They filmed a "different" version of events for the recap at the start of BttF II...so this film is not a sequel also going by your definitions?

He may have originally wanted to film a recap, but that isn't what he filmed, and you cannot claim that he did, because that isn't what you see in the film.

A recap is exaclty what he filmed, and yes that is what we see...he states as much himself.
The evidence is right there in the film.
I fail to understand what more proof is required?

But again, what is a recap?

No, not even Sam Raimi can say it's a recap because that's not what it is.

Right, so now the writer, creator and director of the whole Evil Dead series is wrong and you are right? (and you call us "idiots"? )

If Sam Raimi told you that the movie was filmed on Mars would you believe him?

Errr, no cos I'm not stupid and the film is clearly NOT filmed on Mars.
However the film clearly does continue the story laid out previously in The Evil Dead...even without Sam's words.

What a stupid analogy you attmepted there. You are just desperate now eh?

He may have wrote and directed it, but if he says something in contradiction to the facts then he's still wrong. period.

Contradiction of what "facts"?
You have brought up no facts at all, just opinion...I'm the one that has provided facts.
How you can state Sam is wrong with HIS voice over HIS creation I have no idea.

What a stubborn imbecile you are.
You are so in the wrong...but point blank refuse to accept as much.

"The Sequel To The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror" is a marketing ploy.

A "marketing ploy" how?
Please do exaplain this one as I would love to hear it.
This should be great.

You have no proof of anything. All you have is semantics and hearsay.

So the interview of Sam stating the film is a sequel (several times) and explaining the recap and even going on to state this film is a "direct continuation of The Evil Dead" is just "semantics and hearsay"?
Or unverified, unofficial information...even though I provided a link to an interview with the creator of the series in which he does state, Yes Evil Dead II is a sequel and does state yes Evil Dead II is a "direct continuation" of The Evil Dead.
That is quite the opposite of "hearsay" as that is verified, official information.
You can't really get any more offical or varified than words from the creator himself.

You don't even seem to comprehend the meaning of formulating a coherent argument.

Says the guy that ignores EVERY shread of evidence, proof and word stated by Sam Raimi?
Mine is not even an "argument"...it's simple fact.

Whether I, you or anyone else want's to beleive Evil Dead II is a remake (or whatever) does not even come into it.
It is clearly stated by Sam's words Evil Dead II is a sequel...it's also proven as much within the film itself.
I'm not even arguing. I'm just posting facts.

You have already proven what an obstinate buffoon you are by posting things like...

This is not up for debate.

Everything is up for debate.
Example: You are debating the fact(s) Evil Dead II is a sequel. You are wrong, but you are still debating it.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] surfingthechaos 14 years ago

No close enough to be a recap?
So every other aspect of the story is the same (as you admit), except for the head count...and that is not close enough?

Just asking here..but what is a recap?

No. It's not close enough. I'm sorry, but it's not. A recap gives people a brief outline of events from the previous installment. If the account given conflicts with the events in the previous installment then it is not a recap. The start of Back to the Future part 2 does not conflict with the end of BTTF 1. Yes Jennifer is played by a different actress, but it is the exact same event. Marty and Jennifer opening up the garage door, etc. Had they recast the 5 actors from the first film or even if they had IMPLIED that those characters were present then you could consider it a recap. As it is they are two events that cannot exist in the same continuity, because going to a cabin with one person is a different scenario than going to a cabin with five people.

Why is the following not registering with your brain...every single aspect of the recap is EXACTLY the same as the main plot events of The Evil Dead with the small exception of the amount of people that are there...

It does register. Why doesn't it register in yours that the amount of people there is not just a small exception. The amount of characters in a given story is an absolutely integral element. You change the amount of characters you change the story. period.

How are they "irrelevant"?
The main/sole reason Sam had to re-shoot the recap was due to the "circumstances behind the filming".
If Sam had not had trouble getting the legal rights to use The Evil Dead in the recap...then the recap would have been made up of clips from The Evil Dead.
That's pretty damn relevant really.

It is irrelevant because the discussion is not about what he should've or could've filmed. It is about the film as it exists now, and as it exists it cannot be called a sequel.

Errr, no cos I'm not stupid and the film is clearly NOT filmed on Mars.

The film is also clearly NOT a sequel, but you seem to care more about the sacred words of Sam Raimi, even though he probably only said it to humor the stupid fanboys such as yourself.

Says the guy that ignores EVERY shread of evidence, proof and word stated by Sam Raimi?
Mine is not even an "argument"...it's simple fact.

Whether I, you or anyone else want's to beleive Evil Dead II is a remake (or whatever) does not even come into it.
It is clearly stated by Sam's words Evil Dead II is a sequel...it's also proven as much within the film itself.
I'm not even arguing. I'm just posting facts.

You have provided ONE fact. ONE fact that isn't proof or evidence of anything. Sam Raimi said it was a sequel. So what? When someone points out to you that this is not evidence you try to change the subject by saying that the movie itself shows that it is a sequel, but you don't have any facts to back this statement up. So why don't you show us how awesome you are by once again saying "but Sam Raimi said it was a sequel!". Come on lets all say it together! Sam Raimi said it was a sequel! Sam Raimi said it was a sequel!

[–] giri_futai 14 years ago

Surfing, your entire argument is based upon your flawed definition of a re-cap. A re-cap (recapitulation) is the concise and BRIEF summary of a previous work, whereby omissions are allowed so long as they do not affect the continuity of the work subsequent to the original.

In this instance, the number of characters plays absolutely no part in summarizing the turn of events of the previous film. We can't say something like "Oh but the car belonged to the other guy", or, "The parents of this chick were looking for her!" because none of those things took place, or were not explicitly stated. Sure, we can assume that they all had family, but since it's not mentioned, it's up to speculation. We can also assume that the car was not Ash's, since he's not driving, but an equally safe assumption is that the road trip was long and they were going through a cycle on driving duties.

What you need are the facts. The facts are people entered a cabin, *beep* happened, and the result is that Ash almost dies and the events of the second film take place.

I've come to the conclusion that you're either a pretty successful troll, or you're just incapable of accepting logic in an argument that you yourself stated you didn't want, because it somehow conflicts with your subjectivity. If the latter is the case, you sir have one very fragile ego, and your time may be better spent doing some introspective reflection than responding to people whose views (backed by simple logic) conflict with your subjective perceptions of the reality of things.

[–] sandrock41 14 years ago

Its a recap and it baffles me that people still argue about this. Even after listening to the commentary for ED2, it is explained exactly what it is.

[–] mydawghatesme 14 years ago

Do you know they didn't have the rights to the first movie so that's why they recapped differently? so what they tweaked one thing which is the headcount? Maybe they found it irrelevant to the SEQUEL?

Can we please end this debate? Goddammit. I want Sam Raimi to just come out and call it a sequel already. End this stupid thing. PLEASE!!

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

I want Sam Raimi to just come out and call it a sequel already.

He has.
If you click the link I provided previously.
It leads to an interview with Sam in which he does state Evil Dead II is a sequel (several times). He also states Evil Dead II is a direct continuation of the first film and even talks about the recap.

But some just choose to "ignore" these facts as they don;t like to admit they are wrong.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] parbon84 10 years ago

Sequel doesn't mean plot MUST follow on directly ;)

As if a director branding something a certain way will stop you nerds arguing over silly *beep*

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

You'll have to forgive the lateness of my reply as I have been in hospital.

A recap gives people a brief outline of events from the previous installment.

Which is what the recap does.
It's 7 mins long and contains all the relevant info from the first film.
That is a brief outline of events from the previous instalment.
That is RELEVANT info, like the cabin, the book, the main character, etc.
How many people were in the cabin is not relevant as they are not involved in the sequel...but everything else is covered.

If the account given conflicts with the events in the previous installment then it is not a recap.

What "confliction" is there outside of the number of people?
In terms of the story/plot and events involving the demons and their "ressurection"...where is the "confliction"?

The start of Back to the Future part 2 does not conflict with the end of BTTF

Never said it did.
But it was "re-shot" and "new" stuff added...not just a new actress.
Wait a sec...just like the recap at the start of Evil Dead II really.

Had they recast the 5 actors from the first film or even if they had IMPLIED that those characters were present then you could consider it a recap.

Well they did. Listen to the commentary on the Evil Dead II DVD.
They talk about the fact they did cast and even shot footage with all 5 characters...but this proved to be too long for a recap so they trimmed it down to just the basics...which is what a recap is.

As it is they are two events that cannot exist in the same continuity, because going to a cabin with one person is a different scenario than going to a cabin with five people.

Flawed reasoning as to what a recap is.
"Continuity" has nothing to do with it.
To recap is to refresh by shortening a story, to condense...nothing to do with "continuity". Check the definition yourself. OR is the English language wrong now?
A recap can be as flawed as it likes with it's "continuity"...all it has to do is refesh on previous events. Which the recap at the start of Evil Dead II does very well.

As someone else has already pointed out in this thread, your idea of what a recap is is wrong, not the film itself.

You change the amount of characters you change the story.

Lets go back over what YOU agreed with.
The SAME Ash goes to the SAME cabin with the SAME Linda finds the SAME book and unleashed the SAME demons.
So the ammount of characters is really not that big of a deal in terms of the story is it...you did agree to this earlier...but did contradicted yourself too.

Yes, the ammount of people is a "continuity" error...but the basic plot is the same. Again, this is what a recap is. Re-telling in a more basic, condensed way the previous events. Which (as you admit) it does.
Instead of being so narrowmined on the headcount...pay attention to the story being told.

It is irrelevant because the discussion is not about what he should've or could've filmed. It is about the film as it exists now, and as it exists it cannot be called a sequel.

No, it's irrelevant (in your eyes) at it goes some way to exaplin why the recap is "different". It's just proves your theory is flawed...so you chose to call it irrelevant.
How can the film NOT be called a sequel in it's form now even though the story continues, it's known as Evil Dead II (as in sequel) and it even used the word "sequel" in it's tagline?
Pretty much sequel really.

Let me put this to you.
Just for the sake of this point, ignore the recap at the start of Evil Dead II.
Ok, The Evil Dead ends with "The Force" rushing the cabin and hiting Ash..end of film. We do not know what happend to Ash, maybe he died, maybe he lived. Point is, we do not know.
Now you sit down to watch Evil Dead II...again FORGET the recap just for this one point I am making.
Evil Dead II starts. "The Force" has hit Ash and throws him through the forrest.
Hey look, the story CONTINUES exactly where the last film left off.
Ergo, a sequel.
Is it a flawed sequel, does it have continuity errors? Yes...but it's still a sequel.

Yes the recap is flawed, yes it has continuity errors, etc.
However. One can not deny the story of Evil Dead II picks up where the last film left off.

I'll happily admit the recap is a kind of remake (just like BttF II), yes. But the main part of the film (from Ash being hit) is all 100% new, and DOES continue the story...a sequel.
You can remove the recap from Evil Dead II and The Evil Dead follows on EXACTLY where the first film left off. I even have a fan made edit that does just that and the 2 films do flow into 1. So if Evil Dead II is not a sequel...how is this possible?

Funny how you claim people that say this is a sequel are idiots...yet all you are commenting on is the (flawed) recap.
What about the main part of the film, you know everything AFTER the recap?

The film is also clearly NOT a sequel, but you seem to care more about the sacred words of Sam Raimi, even though he probably only said it to humor the stupid fanboys such as yourself.

The interview I posted was done before the release of Evil Dead II.
No IMDb then, no people thinking the film was a remake as it had not been released yet.
So why would Sam state it is a sequel back then...several times, go on to explain the recap and even state that it is a DIRECT continuation of The Evil Dead just to "please fanboys" when this whole remake/sequel thing did not even exist?
Can Sam see into the future now?

My thinking is, he called it a sequel several times and explained the recap and also stated it is a DIRECT continuation of The Evil Dead cos...that's what it is.

You have provided ONE fact. ONE fact that isn't proof or evidence of anything.

It's ONE more fact that you have provided.
So I guess it's still in my favour then eh?

Also.

1. Sam stating it is a sequel.
2. Sam stating the film is a DIRECT continuation of The Evil Dead.
3. Sam explaing the recap and why it is there.

That is more than ONE fact.

Also, you say and admit I provided one FACT (more than one but nevermind)...then say "that isn't proof or evidence of anything."
Errr, a fact is exactly proof or evidence; a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

So it seems the problem is with your understanding of English.
You don't know what a recap is or what it means...same with facts.

Sam Raimi said it was a sequel. So what? When someone points out to you that this is not evidence you try to change the subject by saying that the movie itself shows that it is a sequel, but you don't have any facts to back this statement up.

You mean facts like I have all ready brought up.
The recap explination? The reason why the recap only features Ash and Linda. The fact the film CLEARLY continues from the end of the last film, etc?

Where are your "facts"?

Wheather I bring up 1 fact or 100 facts...still more than you have done.
It does not matter how many facts I bring up, you just point blank refuse to accept them anyway.
Which brings me right back to my original point...The true idiot is revealed.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juliancardona 14 years ago

I want to watch that Fan Video you made, it sounds pretty cool!

[–] parbon84 10 years ago

Calm down chap.

The story doesn't logically follow.

[–] DesperateHouseboy 11 years ago

What is so hard to undersatand about the fact the SAME Ash goes to the SAME cabin with the SAME Linda give her the SAME necklace. Finds the SAME book and ends up bringing about the SAME demons?

For something that is as you say "two different scenarios"...that's a lot of SAMES.

Pretty much.
Although ive always wondered why they didn't use some footage from the original, to recap, instead of doing it over.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 10 years ago

Although ive always wondered why they didn't use some footage from the original, to recap, instead of doing it over.

Cos Sam did not have the rights to use footage from the original film.

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 10 years ago

Ash is grown up and older.

Cos there was a six year gap between making films.
Nothing to do with the plot of the film at all.

The cabin is different

Yes it is...cos the original cabin burnt down so they used a set for the sequel.
Again, nothing plot related at all.

The furniture is different

Only slightly and that would be a simple continuity error.
You seem to also ignore it's the exact same tape recorder, the same exact clock, etc when making this flawed point.
To re-use the same point, nothing plot related at all.

Millions of details don't match.

Name the millions of details...

The book is different.

True, but again nothing plot related at all.

Just read my scenario. Not direct sequel. Distant sequel.

Why would I want to read a badly written and poorly complied blog you keep advertising to gain traffic when I know it's a direct sequel as the film makers intended?

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

[–] Snake_MacReady82 10 years ago

^^^ 

Thit and thpin!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 10 years ago

Point number one, my blog was praised by most Evil Dead fans and Bruce Campbell himself.

So?
It's still a badly written and poorly compiled blog you keep advertising, no matter who humors you.
It's kind of like when your kid brings home a picture from school they have done. Deep down you know it's crap, but you humor the kid as not to hurt their feelings.

So yeah, have a pat on the head for making a blog. Aren't you a clever little boy.

Point number two, you're just ignoring the undeniable fact they are two different cabins and the storyline supports the notion Ash was OLDER and WISER, and operating in another place. Pity on you.

No, I actually addressed BOTH of those points, that's the direct opposite of ignoring.

I suggest you to make more sex, you seem frustrated and depressed.

Explain the link between your inane blog and my sex life.

Stop acting like a silly troll.

Says the person that ALWAYS brings up their own blog, even when it's not relevant and makes comments about other poster's sex life when that subject has no relation to the point.

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] parbon84 10 years ago

Not wise enough to avoid going to cabins in the woods though? hahahah

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Erik_Draven 9 years ago

I agree its a sequel but do you know why exactly sam didn't film the recap with 5 people again? Was it just to save some cash?

[–] jackula_z 14 years ago

What about the recap in Army of Darkness? That wasn't a remake- but the recap was different to Evil Dead II's ending.

[–] brianlawrence1989 14 years ago

If you read the screenplay here: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Evil-Dead-II-Dead-by-Dawn.html
you can read exactly how Raimi originally planned the beginning of the movie to unfold, it even says

"The final shot of Evil Dead I has a new ending; an extension. Ash is caught by an invisible grip. "G" force is distorting Ash's face as he is rocketed backwards."

Taken RIGHT FROM THE SCREENPLAY

[–] TheZappRowsdower 14 years ago

Normally I wouldn't jump in and saying anything, but in regards to this whole thread, I have to say this...

Surfing whatever your name is, YOU... ARE... A... MORON! You have been defeated but like a good little American you won't let go of it. YOUR opinion is not the same as everyone elses. If you want to think that this isn't a sequal, by all means go ahead and live in your little world.

For the rest of us rational people, we will enjoy this amazing sequal to an already amazing horror film.

Did I mention you're a moron yet?

"There's a special rung in Hell reserved for people who waste good scotch."

[–] Gorebag 14 years ago

"Often considered to be a remake of The Evil Dead (1981), however this is not accurate. The rights to show scenes from the original could not be obtained to re-cap what happened, so they recreated the beginning to explain how Ash got to the cabin, a headless Linda, etc." - Taken right from the trivia section.

Inform yourself before before making long winded and opinionated threads. You'll save yourself much embarrassment.

Also Evil Dead is an excellent film.
The Flicks - http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=14740516

[–] stevieg-13 14 years ago

Hey,

"Idiot" is a bit strong, don't you think, or don't you?

May I suggest that a tad more respect to your fellow film-fans mau elicit more reasoned and fewer ad hominem attacks, which may be justified in this case.

Peace out and don't take it (too) personally.

s

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

I agree completely with the OP. It is not a sequel, it is a remake, basically for the reasons that have been stated.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

Except there were no "reasons" stated.

Still can't believe that even AFTER proof of Sam calling Evil Dead II a sequel, people still are stupid enough ignore the evidence.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

Well, I didn't read through all of the posts, so I didn't see any proof that Sam Raimi said Evil Dead 2 was a sequel. If he did, he probably meant that it was simply the next installment of the Evil Dead series (hence the 2 in the title), not that storywise it was a continuation.

That said, if he couldn't get ahold of the footage from the first movie to put in there at the beginning, then he shouldn't have filmed anything new at all. Just find a way to open up the film with that demonic POV shot rushing towards Bruce Campbell. If you clearly show only Brucee Campbell and his girlfriend Linda in the car (and unaccompanied by three other peopel), then it is not a story continuation. That is delusional. I don't care what the filmmaker intended.

Plus, what about the fact that in the original, they were renting the cabin, whereas in part 2, Ash clearly said that the owners had deserted it, and Linda even worried at one point that they might come back. Another thing is the discovery of the Book of The Dead. Ash discovers it and the tape recorder on the desk, and not in the cellar.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

Nothing said here changes my view or the facts supporting that view. At the beginning of Evil Dead 2, they could have easily have had a prologue explaining that five people went into a cabin and that they accidently unleashed evil spirits and stuff, etc., etc. Just like the narration in the prologue of Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Then, they could have shown Ash walking outside and then showed the POV demon attacking Ash, etc. No one said they had to go and get every character and explain every character and their death, etc., but when you show a completely different opening than what you saw in the previous film, you are not creating a sequel, storywise. You are presenting an entirely different opening altogether.

If you saw Evil Dead and then watched Evil Dead 2 without Sam Raimi (or anyone else) telling you it was a sequel storywise, you would think it was a sequel storywise? No. Because you're seeing an entirely different opening. You're seeing events (as previously mentioned) that contradict how they actually happened in the original. Thus, I don't care what the filmmaker intended, he is creating a paradox in this case. Also, it seems because he didn't have rights to the footage to the first film and because many people didn't see it, that he didn't want to recreate the entire same story but merely pick up from where the first one left off. Thus, he apparently recreated the entire beginning altogether (with only Ash and Linda as the main characters) to get to that point faster. That doesn't mean it is a sequel storywise. In fact, it means the exact opposite, that he recreated the beginning, and thus ED2 is not a sequel but a redone version of the original.

If it's a sequel, then it would be logical (hypothetically) for Ash to mention to the others at some point that his girlfriend and three others were all killed. And of course, that would not be logical. Why? Because we didn't see it, nor were we told that otherwise. And that is because the entire beginning is recreated altogether, regardless of what Sam Raimi said.

I also don't think the T2 example holds water. They didn't literally change anything in the sequel, they simply added to it. The AOD example also doesn't hold water for me personally, because we still saw clips of the ending of ED2. I hated them "reshooting" the stuff with Linda, but they still showed just Ash and Linda, just as we saw in ED2. They didn't show just Ash, or Ash, Linda and three or four others, otherwise I'd say that AOD wasn't a actual sequel to ED2 either.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

When I say "sequel storywise", I mean when you watch Evil Dead 2, is this the same cabin that the events of Evil Dead took place in just one night before? Meaning, when you see Ash and the others fighting for their lives in ED2, are you supposed to think that just one night before, Ash and the other four were fighting for their lives in this very same cabin as you see when you watch Evil Dead? In other words, if I watch Evil Dead 2 and then decide to watch Evil Dead, am I supposed to think that the main events that take place at night in both these movies are just one night apart from each other?

The answer is No. And that's not open for debate. The reason being that when I watch Evil Dead and then watch the beginning of Evil Dead 2, I am not seeing the same things. I am seeing a completely different opening. You call it a "rough recap" but it's not. It's a completely different opening, which be definition, means a remake or redoing. All the nonsense about how they "didn't have time to go over all of this and that" doesn't support the idea that it's a true sequel storywise, but actually why it was just completely redone period. When you see events that completely contradicts how they happened in the first film, I don't figure how anyone can rationalize that as simply a quick "rough recap" of the events of the original. If you believe that, you can pretty much believe in anything.

You can easily watch Evil Dead 2 and there is absolutely NOTHING that would tell you that you are watching a movie that is continuing the events of the original. It would appear as if you are watching a movie that is simply using the same premise as the first (Ash as the main character, evil demons accidently unleashed in an abandoned cabin, etc.) but one that is simply being redone. How anyone can say otherwise is beyond me.

This is gonna be my last post here because I see no reason carrying on on what I think is already extremely obvious. If you want to somehow believe it is a continuation of the events that you watched in Evil Dead, then go ahead. But there's absolutely nothing on-screen that I see in ED2 that tells me so, and I see no reason to believe otherwise.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

I didn't see any proof that Sam Raimi said Evil Dead 2 was a sequel. If he did, he probably meant that it was simply the next installment of the Evil Dead series (hence the 2 in the title), not that storywise it was a continuation.

Fair enough...except...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2450555845715632463#docid=3550 076755651398265

An interview with Sam in which he states SEVERAL times ED II is a sequel.
It's in several parts but watch them all and count how many times ED II is called a sequel...even by Sam himself.

Also discussed is the recap and how it works in relation to the first film.

Sam's words direct from his mouth..."Most people have not seen The Evil Dead, and yet this (Evil dead II) is a direct continuation of The Evil Dead story"

I'll not cover everything again, as ALL of your questions are answered in the post I have already made.

But yes, Evil Dead II is a sequel, a DIRECT continuation.
Are there "continutiy" errors? Yes and lots of them, but that has nothing to do with the contiuning story.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

I know I said my previous post would be my last, but that was before I read this.

As I think I mentioned earlier, regardless of what even Sam Raimi said or wanted or intended ED2 to be, I don't see a sequel on-screen. I see a remake. And once again, if they really wanted it to be a true sequel, they could have done a quick recap (narration wise) at the beginning of ED2. They did that very thing at the beginning of AOD, there's no reason why they couldn't have done it here.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

Once again, I don't care what Sam Raimi said or especially what the original script says. On-screen, there is nothing whatsoever that tells you that the first part of the movie is only a recap (like in AOD where ED2 is clearly recapped), it's all presented as if it's new stuff entirely. And a recap is not changing things completely, such as the case here. You can't just say "well, the first fifteen minutes are a remake, but the rest is a sequel." If you remake the first part of the movie that is completely contrary to the events of the original film, then what is the rest of the movie a 'sequel' to exactly? The only thing it can be a true 'sequel' to (i.e. continuation of) are the first fifteen minutes of this movie! And since those first fifteen minutes and the rest of the movie are all part of the same film, Evil Dead 2 is quite obviously a redone version of Evil Dead.

Yes, aside from the first fifteen minutes, the rest of everything that happens is completely new. That doesn't mean it is not a remake. A remake doesn't have to show every single exact event of the original. It just has to take the main basic premise(s) of the original (in this case, Ash as the main character, the abandoned cabin, the Book Of The Dead, etc.) Yes, there are similar scenes. That doesn't mean it's a sequel. It's possible and non-contradictory for a remake to have similar scenes but it is not possible (by the same token) for a sequel to have events happen that are completely opposite to how that happened in the film that preceded it. Obviously, some people can overlook that and simply put it down to just a "quick recap." I don't know how, but to each his own.

I also don't see the point you're making with WHY Sam Raimi chose to remake the first fifteen minutes of ED2. Clearly, since Raimi wanted to show footage from the original film (but couldn't because he didn't have the rights to them), it didn't really matter how many people saw Evil Dead, he wanted to show clips from the first movie regardless. He couldn't, so that means he just absolutely had to to remake the first fifteen minutes? My point is that he could have easily done a prologue narration. I don't see why there would have been a problem with that, especially since there was a very quick narration anyway about the Book Of The Dead. If he wanted it to be a true sequel storywise, that would have made a lot more sense than just filming a bunch of new stuff that completely contradicts the events of the first movie. I'm guessing it would have probably been a lot cheaper, too.

Also, AOD has a different tone that Evil Dead 2, but it is still a sequel storywise. That is undeniable, considering the events of ED2 are recapped. A slightly different tone doesn't mean it's not a sequel. By that logic, that would been even further evidence that ED2 is not a sequel, since ED2 has a different change in tone from the original ED , much more than AOD does as it relates to ED2.

A couple of other things:

1) Only after the 'sequel' portion begins does Ash discover that the bridge is torn apart. Judging by his reactions, it's clearly the first time he discovers this. Yet, because he already discovered the bridge being out in the original, this should come as no surprise to him.

2) In the recap of ED2 in AOD, it mentions only the events of ED2. It mentions Ash went to the cabin with his girlfriend Linda, not with three other friends accompanying them. So, explain to me how AOD is the "third in the series storywise." it is obviously only a continuation of the second movie.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

And a recap is not changing things completely, such as the case here

The recap does not "change things completely".
Again as already brought up in this very thread.
Outside of the ammount of people in the cabin.
Everything is exactly the same in terms of the basic plot.
There is no contradiction.

Also as already brought up.
It is possible to remove the recap at the start of ED II and edit the 2 films together, creating 1 long film...and it works too.
This would simply not be possible if it was not a sequel.

Yes there are continuity errors.
But that has nothing to do with the film being a sequel.

Even with all the evidence provided. I guess you'll just be as stubborn as the other fella in this thread that was also proven very wrong. You have not even brought any new "reasoning", just the same old misguided views that have already been proven wrong over and over.

You can think ED II is not a sequel all you want, you'll be wrong but you can still think it.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

Once again...

In order for something to be a true sequel storyline wise, that means the sequel has to follow the events of the film that preceded it. In this case, that means when you watch Evil Dead 2 and see Ash and the others fighting for their lives, you must think that just one night before (plotwise), Ash was in this same cabin with his four friends fighting for his life then as well (that would be the plot of the original Evil Dead.) Unfortunely, the first fifteen minutes destroys that perception. Sure, if you edit out the first fifteen minutes of ED2, then yeah, the rest of the movie can easily be a sequel. The problem is that you can't just remove the first fifteen minutes of the movie (which is actually the heart of this entire debate), which presents events that are mostly different than what happened in the first Evil Dead.

In the original, there were five people instead of two, they were renting the cabin instead of just staying there without permission, they discovered the BOTD in the cellar instead of on the table, etc. All of this is dismissed in the first fifteen minutes of ED2 because they show an entirely different opening. And again, you can't just say "well, forget the first fifteen minutes" because those first fifteen minutes are part of the movie. It's not even like they're presented as a "recap" either. The whole movie starts as if it's a completely new story altogether, aside from the main basic premises (Ash, BOTD, Cabin in the woods, etc.) But that is more or less the definition of a remake.

And speaking of which, time to define what a remake is (or redoing, or reimagining, whatever you want to call it.) It does not mean every single scene or event or character has to be 100% the same. It just means you take the main basic plotline and put a new spin on it. In this case, Ash being the main character (and Linda being his girlfriend) the cabin in the woods, discovering the BOTD, unleashing the spirits, etc. But yes, it can (and often does, of course, being a remake) have scenes and/or plot twists that are similar to the original movie. In this case, Linda being beheaded and buried, the woods coming alive and attacking someone, etc. That doesn't make it a sequel.

So yes, starting after the first fifteen minutes, ED2 is pretty much an entirely new story. That is perfectly compatible with being a remake, since (once again) all a remake has to do is keep the basic premises of the original, not every single scene. But the first fifteen minutes can't be ignored, and they paint the picture of a "new beginning" rather than a contradictory "recap" of what happened in the original. Never knew a "recap" could portray things very different than how they actually were in the movie they are supposedly "recapping" but what do I know.

Also, just because it has the #2 in the title doesn't make it a sequel storywise. It just means it's the second installment in the series. Return of The Living Dead Part 2 is not a sequel storyline wise to the original. But it's still called part 2, only because it's the second in the series.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

I am not "vehemently" doing anything. I am calm and rational as I make these posts. If anything, you seem to be the one getting a bit emotional. And you didn't refute my point about what constitutes a sequel. ROTD Part 2 has the number 2 in the title, and it has similar scenes to the original. The canister unleashing gas that brings back the dead, the fact that the dead can run instead of just walk, the fact that they eat only brains instead of just human flesh in general, the appearance of the Tarman zombie, Thom Matthews and James Karen playing almost the exact same character, etc. Yet, it does not continue the story of the first, and introduces a whole new set of characters altogether. But it has the number 2 in the title because it is the second installment.

Evil Dead 2 is no different in this aspect. Let's see...

"In the case of ED2 a sequel. Why, because it involves Ash, The Cabin, The Book Of The Dead, the same instance with the tape that summons the evil, Linda getting possessed and having her head lopped off with a shovel by Ash, Ash getting hit by the force in the same manner as in the end of The Evil Dead...all elements, plot threads and characters from the original movie all in one condensed set of running time...and then an hour plus of extra new movie material to continue what happens next. A sequel... "

All of those things mentioned at the beginning of that paragraph do not automatically make it a sequel. Remakes/redoings usually have to involve at least some of the main plot elements. The latest remake I watched was The Crazies. It contained a few of the main premises of the original film, as well as a few similar scenes. But on the whole, most of the characters and the events themselves (including the ending) were different. Same here. Ash is the main character, we see Linda is his girlfriend, it takes place in an abandoned cabin, the BOTD and the tape recording unleashes evil spirits, etc., but otherwise, most of the characters and happenings are different.

And, of course, Army of Darkness recaps the events of ED2 and makes no mention of the events of the first Evil Dead. Which only further makes the plot of the original film seem irrevelent as it relates to the 2nd and 3rd film. Which is a huge reason I am not willing to accept that the story of the first ever happened when it comes to part 2 and 3. I know you'll say AOD doesn't have to, but then again, when it recaps ED2, it mentions Ash and Linda only going to the cabin instead of five people. I know it does that because that's what ED2 did, but that is my entire point!

You can easily watch Evil Dead 2 as a remake or redoing if you want and there is no logical flaw in that, regardless of what the filmmakers said behind the camera. To watch it as a sequel requires you to have a couple key events changed completely, and yes, changing the number of people in the cabin is a HUGE deal... it is the entire plot of the original! I am still actively refusing to accept that ED2 continues the storyline of the first when I see a new beginning altogether. It doesn't play like a "recap" at all even, and Ash himself doesn't even seem like the exact same character. In the first, he was scared *beep* when the demons were attacking. In the second, he obviously has more of a humor and charisma to him than he did in the previous film. You can see that in him from the start.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BaronVictor 14 years ago

Ash himself doesn't even seem like the exact same character. In the first, he was scared *beep* when the demons were attacking. In the second, he obviously has more of a humor and charisma to him than he did in the previous film. You can see that in him from the start.

Well if it's any consolation to you Sam thought Ash's personality transformation in AOD was unnatural.

"What's his fücking problem?"
"He wants to be President."

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

so why do people argue about this still?

Cos they just point blank refuse to accept the truth.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

All that says is whoever doesn't believe the director and creator of the movieis stupid and stubborn.

Exactly, and when someone starts a thread calling people that "think" ED II is a sequel "idiots". Just goes to strengthen stupid and stubborness.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

"Well if it's any consolation to you Sam thought Ash's personality transformation in AOD was unnatural."

But I don't. I think he seemed pretty much like the same kind of Ash he was in Evil Dead 2.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

He really was nothing like ED II Ash.
The cheesey lines, the sexist attitude toward women, the 'high horse' aproach to the "primatives" around him.
Nothing like ED II Ash.

The only trait carried over was Ash's ineptitude.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

That's because he was in a brand new environment. It's not like we saw every single personality trait he had in ED2. He looked down on the "primitives" because he came from a much more advanced society and time period, and that seemed just like something he would do. Also, I don't think he really had a sexist attitude towards women.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 14 years ago

'Give me some sugar baby' is not sexist?
You know, using a woman for sex.
Then followed by Adam's point of the 'pillow talk'.

Seriously, try that with a woman and make note of the response you get.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

I don't believe either of those things is sexist. How is his comment about pillow talk sexist? And "give me some sugar" baby seems a bit male machismo, but I feel silly considering it "sexist", as in literally thinking men are superior to women. I think after surviving deadites and impressing the primitives by surviving the pit, it made him bring out a little of his arrogance more. But you can see bits of his personality in AOD in ED2, with the way he outright challenged Knowby's wife. But he was in a *beep* situation, so I can see him constantly spouting sarcastic remarks as a way of dealing with the whole thing.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

I don't think I ever denied that Sam Raimi intended it to be a continuation of the first movie, but I can swear that he (and/or others involved in the movie) have also said that the movie (as it is) still plays out more like a remake/re-doing. But whatever, my case all along was that in the movie itself (completely separate from what the filmmakers say outside of the movie,) I think it's not only plausible, but more plausible (regardless of what was intended) that Evil Dead 2 is a new story with the main elements from the first (i.e Ash, cabin, BOTD, tape recorder that unleashes the demons) than a continuation, even if it is only based on just those first seven minutes (though there's a few moments elsewhere in the movie that makes me think it makes sense that ED2 is a story unconnected to the first one.)

And I don't see the difference between "pretty much" and "bits" in the context that I used them. He was 'pretty much' the same guy, as in his personality in AOD didn't seem unnatural in comparision with the way he was in ED2. I mention you can see "bits" of his personality from AOD in ED2, as in there were little moments in ED2 where he acted very similar to the way he did in AOD, for those who think he seemed like a different kind of character in AOD.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

I did say I didn't 'think' he intended it as a sequel, but I was wrong. No big deal. The main crux of my argument, however, has always been that by looking at the movies themselves (and not just what the filmmakers say outside of them), Evil Dead 2 comes off looking more like a movie unconnected (continuity-wise) to the first one, and AOD seems like it is a sequel only to ED2.

I think if a casual movie goer were to watch all three movies for the first time (not knowing what the director's 'intentions' were), they would most likely assume the same thing. They would assume this because the first seven minutes of ED2 are not exact events from the original, and they are never specified as being a re-cap at all, like the one in AOD was (with Ash's narration and all.) If they did suspect that ED2 was a remake/re-imagining, then the re-cap at the start of AOD would have only fully convinced them, since it shows only Ash and Linda heading to the cabin (just like in the beginning of ED2), except that from the ED2-Is-A-Sequel POV, that never actually happened in the storyline because that was only meant to be a quick re-cap of what REALLY happened, which was Ash/Linda/Scotty/Shelly/Cheryl going to the cabin together.

As for a few little things that further make it plausible that ED2 can be viewed as a 'remake':

1. The bridge. Already mentioned this a couple times.
2. Why is the fruit cellar door not busted open in ED2? Cheryl (when she escaped in the original) busted it open and even knocked the chains off the hinges or whatever. But in ED2, it's fine.
3. Speaking of Cheryl, what happened to her body and Scott's?
4. On the recording in the first movie, Professor Knowby never mentions his daughter. We never see a picture of her on the table either. Yes, I know that you could argue that in the "re-cap", they decided to introduce her as a character so people would know who she was already when she showed up later on, but that's my point. It (once again ) makes the re-cap not seem like a re-cap at all but rather just a new beginning.

As for the last part of your post about the differences between "pretty much" and "bits"... once again, I explained that in my last post. I think I may have slightly misinterpreted what was meant, however, when someone said that Ash's character changed from ED2 to AOD. All I meant was (as mentioned before) was that his behavior in AOD didn't seem 'unnatural' in comparison to who he was in ED2. Which is to say that I can believe that the character in ED2 would behave the way he did in AOD, given his experiences and setting.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 14 years ago

Well, if ED2 is supposed to be a continuation of the storyline of the first movie (the story of Ash/Scotty/Shelly/Cheryl/Linda going to the cabin), then yes, once the 'sequel' portion of the movie begins, we should be seeing the full 'aftermath' of what happened in the first movie. That includes Scott and Cheryl's bodies, as well as the broken fruit cellar door. Another thing I should mention is how we don't see Shelly's grave either. Her grave is out there near Linda's grave. Yet, in the sequel, we don't see it. Also, just to nitpick, Ash never really 'buried' Linda. He chopped her head off, but never put her in the grave, never shoveled dirt over her, and never put a wooden cross over her grave.

I don't get how you can say that "because we don't see it in the re-cap, why would we see it referenced later on the movie." Well, because by your own admission, the 're-cap' isn't supposed to be how things actually happened in the overall storyline. You've said and argued that what we see with Ash and Linda in those first seven minutes are merely a quick edited version of events that happened in Evil Dead as a way to catch new viewers up. It was even mentioned way earlier that if you ignore the first seven minutes and pick up where Ash gets knocked into the tree by the POV demon, you could literally splice ED and ED2 and have one long film. Ok, so what does it matter if we didn't see something in the re-cap? The "re-cap" isn't supposed to be an accurate depiction of events anyway.

This was pretty much my whole point in regards to saying that Evil Dead 2 plays out more like a 'remake' than a 'sequel.' By saying that because we don't see something in the first seven minutes of ED2 that it would be pointless to make any reference to it later on, you're ALMOST agreeing with me. I'm simply saying that the first seven minutes doesn't feel like a 'recap' but rather a new beginning. I agree therefore that showing any of the things I mentioned would be irrational (broken fruit cellar door, Shelly's grave, Scott and Cheryl's bodies, etc.), but for different reasons.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MajinStylee 14 years ago

Don't bother answering to Klockard. Someone who blatantly ignores what the creator himself said is not worth arguing against. Word of God trumps every piece of dribble some random nobody on this board writes. EDII is a direct continuation sequel, not a remake, and that's that. Whenever a TV show recaps a previous episode, many scenes are left out. I guess those scenes aren't canon and never happened?

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 13 years ago

Just wanted to "bump" this up for peeps that want a PROPER explination as to the remake/sequel thing.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] Klockard23 13 years ago

When a TV show recaps a previous episode, do they show stuff that happened differently than how it actually happened? If a guy shoots another guy in the face in one episode, then in the re-cap, would it be rational to show that same scene, re-shot, with the victim being stabbed in the face instead, and then when the re-cap is over and the new episode officially begins, they continue the story as if he got shot instead of stabbed?

Yes, the re-cap wasn't supposed to be an accurate depiction of events but just an edited version of them, but your example is ridiculous.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Klockard23 13 years ago

lol I really don't want to get into another tired argument on this subject, but since I love to argue, then why not...

My main problem with the recap has always been because it doesn't seem like a recap at all. Evil Dead 2 starts off like it's the first of it's kind. You could literally erase the existence of the first movie and present ED2 as the first of the series, and the story lines of ED2 and AOD would be completely unaffected. The movie starts off not seeming at all like a recap, but rather a new beginning. You can easily view Evil Dead 2 as not being a sequel to the original at all.

Also, when I see a recap, I like to see things as to how they actually happened. I'm not bothered at things being left out. The recap of ED2 at the beginning of Army Of Darkness didn't show us everything that happened, but everything it did show us, it actually happened in that very way. In Evil Dead 2, they show things happening differently than how they actually happened. Such as Ash finding the book on the table alone instead of the cellar with Scotty, or the fact that they show scenes (such as Ash and Linda arriving to the cabin) that was supposed to involve other characters, which are omitted there.

Yes, you don't have a problem with this. But I do. I don't mind recaps leaving things out, hence why they are called recaps. But I don't like being told that things happen differently than how they happened. But this problem is mainly one connected to my first problem, which is that the recap doesn't feel like one at all, and it always just seemed much more natural to me to assume ED2 is a brand new story unconnected to the original.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 13 years ago

It's taken you several months to come up with a retort...and you still prove you have no idea what a recap is?

Can I just point out one HUGE flaw in your reasoning there?

Ok you say the recap at the start of ED II is not a recap as somethings are different. You say you have no problem with a recap leaving things out as long as nothing is 'changed'.
Fair point.
However, you then go on to say the recap at the start of AoD is ok as...

EVERYTHING it did show us, it happend in that VERY WAY.

Your exact words.
You may want to check that cos I can think of one HUGE change between the end of ED II and the recap of AoD.
I'll see if you can spot it, it's hardly subtle and actually changes the story set up and the main character.
In fact, the change in story/plot set up is bigger between EDII and AoD than anything between ED and EDII.

Give it a few months to think over, you're good at that.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] Klockard23 13 years ago

I didn't reply for several months because I had nothing left to say. Pretty much all points have been said and repeated, and the only reason I replied this time was to reply to the one guy who said that ED2's recap of Evil Dead was like a TV show episode that recaps some of the things (but not all things) of the previous episode, when it's not, and I already explained why. Just go read my post that before my previous one.

And I had forgotten about the very ending of Evil Dead 2 being changed at the beginning of AOD. That's also annoying, but not as much because it was only the last 30 seconds or so that was changed. I also hated that they re-shot the other footage, but even then, they still shot THOSE events in the same exact manner that they happened. I still see the first seven minutes of Evil Dead 2 in a completely different light. Starts off very much like it's NOT recapping anything but just restarting the whole concept over again, and there is no magical cutoff point between Ash getting hit by the POV demon and the movie telling us "ok, recap is over. Now the sequel part begins." Everything starting after Ash getting hit just seems like a natural continuation of those first seven minutes (which would make it a remake, not a sequel), which is my main complaint, as I described in my previous post.

You guys can believe what you want, but I personally prefer to think Evil Dead 2 makes more logical sense when it is viewed as an alternate version of Evil Dead rather than a story continuation, even if Raimi didn't intend it that way.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 13 years ago

And I had forgotten about the very ending of Evil Dead 2 being changed at the beginning of AOD. That's also annoying, but not as much because it was only the last 30 seconds or so that was changed.

Wait, quit the back peddling.
Let's just clear this up.

You have a problem with the fact Ash finds the book on a table instead of in the cellar in the ED II recap. In fact this is so much a problem for you you REFUSE to accept the FACT ED II is a sequel...even after confirmation from the writer and director himself.

However, the fact Ash is hailed a hero at the end of ED II but is the very EXACT opposite in the recap for AoD is just "annoying, but not as much"?

Ash finding the book in a different place does not affect the story or character in any way.
But changing the actual character and even a MAJOR plot point?

Finding a book in a different place is a problem, but a complete character change and even a plot point difference is "annoying, but not as much"?

I know I'm repeating the same point over and over...but you are not making any sense here.

Also..."because it was only the last 30 seconds or so that was changed."
Well that's ok then if it's only 30 seconds. The fact it's changed the character and plot from that point does not matter, it's only 30 seconds.
CAn I use your defence here?
Ash finding the book on the table in the ED II recap was less than 30 seconds.

What the hell are you talking about?

I didn't reply for several months because I had nothing left to say.

Hate to break this to you...you still don't have anything to say.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] Klockard23 13 years ago

Did I not say it was annoying? You're probably right that it would be hypocritical to defend that (not that I really did per se) and yet still show annoyance at the first seven minutes of ED2. Maybe because it was the very end of the movie that I didn't mind as much. I just see the beginning of ED2 in a different light. The whole first part of ED2 is telling you to watch things unfold differently than how they did in Evil Dead, then as soon as Ash gets hit by the demon, that you must now pretend (storywise) that the rest of the movie that you're about to see is not a continuation of those exact events of those first seven minutes. The recap in Evil Dead 2 dismisses the existence of three people, and tells events that happened in Evil Dead happening in a different way. The beginning of AOD only dismisses the last minute of Evil Dead 2. But like I said, I won't defend it too much. I wish they had done this differently as well.

This still does nothing to lessen my annoyance of the first seven minutes of Evil Dead 2. And yes, I could easily see the first seven minutes of ED2 as you guys do and live with it, I just find it more natural to see ED2 as a remake/alternate version of the original. It also flows better with Army Of Darkness, because in the recap at the beginning of AOD, they show only Ash and Linda going to the cabin instead of Ash/Linda/Scotty/Shelly/Cheryl, even though AOD is supposed to be the second story that follows the original Evil Dead. Yes, they didn't show us all five because we only saw Ash and Linda going up there at the beginning of ED2, but that's part of my point.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 13 years ago

Did I not say it was annoying?

Yes, which is why I used your view in my point...or did you miss that?

Let's just clarify...again.

Ash finding the book in a different place is a HUGE problem. (AGAIN) So much so that you refuse to accept the fact ED II is a sequel even with the creator himself stating as much.

However, Ash's character changing from hero to villian with no explaintion offered. The whole plot being given a 180 is simply "annoying"?

You are actually standing by this opinion?

The recap in Evil Dead 2 dismisses the existence of three people

Notice anyone missing in the recap for AoD?
I did.

and tells events that happened in Evil Dead happening in a different way.

What events "happen in a different way"?
Ash goes to cabin in BOTH films, with a girl called Linda in BOTH films. A book and recording is found in BOTH films and the recording is played in BOTH films, etc.

You can not say the finer details are what change the events when you fail to see the MAJOR change between ED II and AoD.
Hypocrite is such an understatement.

Oh wait, you just said..."and tells events that happened in Evil Dead happening"
Kind of like a recap I guess?

I just find it more natural to see ED2 as a remake/alternate version of the original.

There is no problem with that at all...as long as you accept how wrong you are.

It also flows better with Army Of Darkness, because in the recap at the beginning of AOD, they show only Ash and Linda going to the cabin instead of Ash/Linda/Scotty/Shelly/Cheryl

Dispite the complete character change and plot device 180 you mean?
Leave out a few unnecessary characters is a problem, changing the dynamic of the whole picture is not?

How does this "flow better"?
Explain, in detail how a complete character change from one film to the next with no reasonable thinking "flows better".

Please, make some sense here.

Yes, they didn't show us all five because we only saw Ash and Linda going up there at the beginning of ED2, but that's part of my point.

I "get" your point, believe me I do.
Now try to get mine.
The essence of the story is the same between The Evil Dead and Evil Dead II. Nothing REALLY changes outside a few continuity errors.
Ash still goes to the cabin, Ash still finds the book/recording, the "force" is still released.
Nothing really changes between the 2 films...outside of continuity errors.
Yes characters dissapear, the book is found in a different place. BUT the story is still the same.

However there is a sizeable change from Evil Dead II to Army Of Darkness.
Not just in terms of character, but also how the film pans out from the start onwards.

It's a complete 180 on what was shown at the end of ED II to what we see at the start on AoD.
It's an exact opposite. It's complete contradiction...but you just find that "annoying"?
There is no contradiction between TED and ED II. Yet HUGE contradiciton between ED II and AoD.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] Klockard23 13 years ago

Wow. For the third time, I don't feel like 'defending' Army Of Darkness. I said that it would have been nice to have somehow kept the ending of Evil Dead 2 in there. And what's wrong with my use of the word "annoying?" The recap in Evil Dead 2 is also annoying. Annoying is a suitable word I would use to describe both.

My problem with the Evil Dead 2 recap is something I've already explained a million times. It's not just the book being discovered differently, that was just one example I was using. I'm not gonna bother with this one yet again, I've already explained this a million times throughout the thread. Saying that the opening of Evil Dead 2 wasn't a recap but rather just a new beginning flows better with Army Of Darkness because in the recap in ED2, we see only Ash and Linda going up to the cabin instead of all five people. (Just like I mentioned in my last post.) Everything we see (barring Ash being transported to Medieval Times) is exactly how we saw it in ED2. That part of it is the part that flows better.

And yes, once again, they should have tried to make the opening of AOD look more like the ending of ED2. They could have had the guys hailing Ash as a hero, and then have the king (or whoever, I forgot his name) come along and claim that he's actually one of Henry's men and not the "hero from the sky" after all. That right there would have solved everything. But this still does nothing to change my opinion on ED2.

[–] costass-3 13 years ago

Back on major topic:

Evil Dead 2 is absolute continuation of the story of Evil Dead.

The main misunderstanding comes from the quick re-shoot of the events of the first film. They just briefly show what happens in the first movie in the first seven minutes (without slap into your face all the details and dead scenes from the first part , because is not really necessary for the story of ED2, but this without any doubts can't be reason for ED2 to not be called a direct sequel.)

Not to mention the fact that after Ash was pushed by the force nothing else is rehashed or remaked from Evil Dead.

[–] joubqa 13 years ago

Fact: Going to a cabin with one person is a different scenario than going to a cabin with five people. Result: It is not a recap of ED I.

If they hadn't shown Ash and Linda driving there alone and had just cut straight to the cabin it would be acceptable (we could assume the other where there but not shown for brevitys sake). As it is, it's clearly established they went there alone , which is not what happened in ED I.

You could say the sequel starts after the recap, but if you put that recap in there it's not a sequel. And it doesn't matter what Raimi says, directors can be wrong too. ONE is not the same as FIVE. Get it? Got it? Good. Glad we got that out of the way.

/thread

edit: we could assume the others were out of the car in the scene that was shot for some reason. they were maybe at a rest stop and linda and ash were driving alone for a while for whatever reason. that would make it acceptable, but it is a bit of a stretch.

man, had they just put 3 people in the backseat for that scene we wouldn't have the need for these discussions.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joubqa 13 years ago

"Fact: A recap is a summary. A summary is a brief account of main points that does away with needless details etc. "

The amount of people is not a needless detail. What they show does not summarize DE I. Something very similar happening to two people, yes. But it's not the same.

I know what a recap is, and those 7 minutes are not a recap of DE I.

Actually, if we bring the concept of retconning in to this, I can call DE II a sequel. In DE II they retcon what happened in DE I to have been happened only to Linda and Ash. So, DE II is a sequel, but it's not a recap in the beginning, it's a retcon.

But whatever, I won't be coming back to this thread.
bye, and enjoy the films :)

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 13 years ago

I find it strange that the whole sequel/remake thing never existed when ED II was first released.
It's a fairly recent thing that appeared once the films gained popularity years later, and when the films could be watched back to back.

Not once back then was ED II thought of or labled a 'remake'.

It's also 'strange' the way some folk ignore proven facts.

If one chooses to see ED II as a remake, good for them I say. Does not prevent them from being wrong though.

Jesus died for our sins. As he's already dead...sin away.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thatguymicah 13 years ago

I say it doesn't matter. You can look at it either way. Yes, the first seven minutes work as a recap because the story told is extremely similar to the events of the first movie. If that's what Raimi says it is and you agree with him, then that's what it is. It's also a little different too, so if people want to think of those few minutes as a remake of Evil Dead, that's fine. It doesn't matter. Either way, it's an enjoyable movie. People don't need to argue about it. You don't have to change anyone's opinion. Just agree to disagree.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 13 years ago

The 'argument' is not about the recap being considered a remake or not.
I think it's pretty much agreed universaly that it is.

The 'argument' is whether the film Evil Dead II is a remake, of which there is no 'argument' anyway, it's fact that Evil Dead II is a sequel and that is does DIRECTLY continue from the last film.
However there are a few that (for some reason) point blank refuse to accept such facts.
See the title of this thread for evidence...

Jesus died for our sins. As he's already dead...sin away.

[–] nacthu 13 years ago

This argument extends at least back to the early 1990s, but we just didn't have the internet. We used this trilogy back in college in 1993 as an example of different types of sequels/remakes.

It was a lively discussion, since the film that appears most like a remake was very clearly labeled "Evil Dead 2", while the film that was most like a sequel didn't even use the Evil Dead brand name. Truly a confusing franchise.

Of course, Raimi says that it's a sequel (thank you, dude), but follows it up with the most bizarre reasoning for re-shooting the intro I've ever heard, which is that he'd have to approach every territory that licensed the movie for the right to use HIS OWN FOOTAGE. Seriously, if that's true, that must be the worst licensing agreement ever written.

[–] nacthu 13 years ago

Fixed that tragic spelling error (thanks).

Here's a quote from Raimi back in 1987 when asked why he reshot the opening scenes...

"Firstly I don't have the Rights to The Evil Dead and therefore could not legally use anything from it. I thought of reassembling the old actors but when I gave a dinner party for them to see how viable it was, I was horrified at how fat the original Linda had become. So few people had seen the first movie I thought I'd better retell it simplifying the process."

Ah, the old "too fat" reasoning works every time.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 13 years ago

which is that he'd have to approach every territory that licensed the movie for the right to use HIS OWN FOOTAGE. Seriously, if that's true, that must be the worst licensing agreement ever written.

There was no "licensing agreement", well not in the same way a studio backed film would have.

Remember, this was 100% independent film-making here.

Sam, Rob and Bruce raised the money for the film by first showing the "original" The Evil Dead (Within The Woods) to various people. Mostly bussines owners. If they liked what they saw, they put in some money.
Eventually they raised enough money from enough investors to make The Evil Dead. Meaning that Sam never owned "the rights" at all as it was each of the investors that owned the film as a whole.
As no sequel was ever thought of and as Sam planned on making the ultimate drive-in movie (back them movies were disposable. They were shown and forgotten about), Sam had no intention of owning The Evil Dead at all.

Then of course a sequel came about. So Sam originaly did want to use footage from The Evil Dead. When he asked the investors for permission to use THEIR film in the sequel most of them (not all) demanded money, money Sam did not have to spend.

Ego re-shooting.

Of course now Sam owns The Evil Dead rights 100%.

Jesus died for our sins. As he's already dead...sin away.

[–] Magnus Wersen 12 years ago

I find it strange that the whole sequel/remake thing never existed when ED II was first released.
It's a fairly recent thing that appeared once the films gained popularity years later, and when the films could be watched back to back.

Not once back then was ED II thought of or labled a 'remake'.

It's also 'strange' the way some folk ignore proven facts.

If one chooses to see ED II as a remake, good for them I say. Does not prevent them from being wrong though.

I know I am a couple of years late to this discussion but when I watched ED II back in '88 I never thought this was some kind of remake or whatever. When the force hit Ash I thought "great, now it begins". I was never bothered with the lack of the three characters from the previous film at all. After all, it was a quick recap and I've seen sequels that made that far worse than ED II.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 12 years ago

I know I am a couple of years late to this discussion

A couple of years late, but I'm still here.

but when I watched ED II back in '88 I never thought this was some kind of remake or whatever.

You, me and everyone else that was around at the time and saw the films originally.
Even talking to friends today about this that also originally saw the films. They all have the same view of it being a sequel and never once thought of as a remake.

As I have previously said.
This "remake" view is recent history. Only from when people could actually own the film and watch them back to back. Which for me says more about the viewer's mind set then the films themselves.

I honestly think the remake/sequel thing could be slip into ages.
You'd have more younger people going for the "remake" theory over the sequel fact.

I was never bothered with the lack of the three characters from the previous film at all. After all, it was a quick recap

Exactly what it is, a quick recap.

and I've seen sequels that made that far worse than ED II.

Definitely.

Aside form continuity.
The plot/story of The Evil dead and Evil Dead II flow. Yet (as you say) there have been other sequels that mess up plot/story to make sequels.

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

[–] Gittespi 11 years ago

And I know I'm now a couple months late, on top of the years that the last poster was late xD

Anyways, I just wanted to say I can see arguments for both sides easily. The only big inconsistency I can find (outside of the recap section) that might lead people to think it's a remake is the fact that he didn't remember from the previous night that the bridge was down. You'd think someone fighting for their life to defeat evil and escape would remember that they found out the bridge was down the previous night.

Another smaller thing is that he never once brings up the three people that joined him in the original. Not here, and not in the recap from AoD.

There's also the tone switch and the fact that they used the same basic story as the original. Keep in mind though, If these little tidbits mean anything, it implies it's a re-imagining, not a remake haha. Variations on a theme, if you will.

But in the end, if you decide to throw the inconsistencies aside, and go by what the director intended, it's also very acceptable as a sequel. I honestly don't understand why people freak out over this anyways. Sequel, remake, or re-imagining makes no difference haha it's still a wonderful film experience.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] G_Runciter 11 years ago

"Yes I understand why they chose to film it the way they did, but that is irrelevant."

sure, it's irrelevant what the filmmakers were doing, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW BETTER